The Revealing Confusions of Imran Ahmed’s Comments and Responses

One of my commenters recently wrote me off-line to warn me about trolls, identifying Imran Ahmed as a possibility. I’m not sure, personally. He strikes me as a fairly honest person, in the sense that he tells you just what he’s thinking (however muddled), and as such, worth responding to seriously. The test of his real honesty, will be in how he responds to our challenges. So far, he hasn’t done too well. Below, I analyze his comments, the responses he’s given to other commenters at the site, pose him questions (in bold).

Please, Imran, feel free to answer any or all of my questions.

Imran’s comments came in response to a piece I posted with Nidra Poller’s analysis of the dynamics of Eurabia.

Comment by Imran Ahmed — February 27, 2009

HA HA HA. That’s all I can say about a bunch of scared fools who cant remember history well enough to realize their own religious acts from the past. The only difference was that at that time there were no CNN, Blogs, Internet, Media etc.

Last time I check:
1. Jews didnt like Jesus Christ that well – if you know what I mean.. So did Christians banned Jew’s book?

2. During all Crusades – more Jews were killed by Christens then ever… what happened to that party?

Here’s a passage from wikipedia: “For the first decade, the Crusaders pursued a policy of terror against Muslims and Jews that included mass executions, the throwing of severed heads over besieged cities walls, exhibition and mutilation of naked cadavers, and even cannibalism…”

3. Hitler was also from a religion.. so why didn’t you Jews classify entire Christianity as an AIDS virus?

Similarly, there are millions of other questions..

People, the answers to all these questions is simple: there was no media, no internet at that time… otherwise the crime, the terror, the hostility, the horror committed at that time against Muslims, Jews or Christians are even sometimes impossible to imagine. Not even the writers of Friday the 13th could imagine that torture.

I’m not fully sure of what the point is here. On the one hand, there’s a point I agree with: without the eye of the camera, terrible things happened; on the other hand, since Muslims were among the most vicious — and continue to be… what are you saying?

The only problem was and still is, that if one guy wakes up one day to say – “This Religion is Crap – they are taking over, they are this, they are that…. bla bla bla..”, He only is trying to light-up a a fuel tank..

Presuming here that the “guy” who wakes up one day is the non-Muslim and the “crappy religion” that wants to take over bla bla bla is Islam, then the non-Muslim (i.e., infidel) is trying to light up a fuel tank, namely religious war? or Islam? This, of course, leaves the issue of whether Islam is, indeed “taking over.”

If you Christians and Jews think that Islam is taking over Europe.. I’ve got two questions:

1) Was Europe born with your religion? or did you took over it before we did?

Isn’t that jumping the gun? You haven’t taken over yet. But let’s say you meant, “before we set out to take it over.” In which case there are two answers:

a) Europe has, over the last two millennia, been the subject of constant invasions, some of them successful — Celts, Roman, Germans — some less successful — Huns, Saracens (Muslims), Magyars (Hungarians), Northmen (Scandinavians), and Turks (Muslims again). So, yes, in the “longue durée” it’s conquer or be conquered. But that just leaves us at, Muslims are trying to conquer and Europe wants to/should defend itself (if it can).

b) Europe was not Europe until the last millennium. (Some say that Charlemagne was Pater Europae, but that paternity was really post-mortem. From the eleventh century onwards, the “Europeans” made Europe what it is today — the richest and most powerful civilization the world has seen. So again, surely Imran, you don’t mind if they defend themselves from attack, right?

2) If you are so civilized and “Better than us” – then try to stop it like as if you are indeed “Better than us”. I mean preach your religion, show dignity of your beliefs, show ppl that yours better. it would only be a fair competition. What? are you scared of some competition from as you calls it “just another religion”? the all mighty Chris-Jews combination is scared now… hahaha.. you’ve got to be kitting me.

I agree completely with you. But Muslims aren’t playing by those rules. On the contrary, they bully and riot, and show no dignity when they get hysterical over criticism or lack of respect. I’m think you do that because in a really level playing-field (i.e., no coercion, market-place of ideas) your religion will not carry much weight. So you operate on the principle that if you look like a winner, and a nasty winner at that, people will join your side to avoid the fate of losers when you win. Your ha ha ha sounds a lot like a bully’s laugh.

Finally, let me tell you one thing:

If English dont want any Muslims in their country – they shouldnt have invaded India, Arabs and Africa.

To which Cynic aptly noted: Maybe if the Muslims had not invaded India, the Mediterranean region and North Africa and just stayed in what is Saudi Arabia there wouldn’t be a problem today.

In doing so, he highlighted the empty moral game at work here. Muslims are imperialists, and have been so from the earliest stages of the religion. Their indignation at Western imperialism is hollow, and their demand for justice is just a pose for their desire for revenge and domination… and Imram has barely bothered to dress up his desires in the demopathic clothing of human rights. For him, the West is just getting what it deserves. What goes around comes around.

If Americans hates Afghan’s Taliban – who asked you to be at Afghanistan in 80’s?

If Americans dont like Iraqis – who invited you there?

the problem with you ppl is simple – You invade and then you expect an “expected” response. My friends, there is no expected response from we Muslims.. if you invade us – we wont do anything.. but when you leave – we will be there before you! That’s the simple rule.. I mean – “come here sure: but you ant going back alone.”

So let me get this straight. The West kicks the stuffings out of Muslims on a battlefield, and then, in a combination of guilt and desire for cheap labor, opens its borders to Muslims, who then take advantage of it to take revenge. You’re proud of the Eurabian strategy.

And what the hell are you crying about America in danger from Islam Take Over? Last time I check, you Europeans invaded America, took it over from top to bottom. Its only natural that the history repeats itself. I mean if we need a permission for America, we will ask it from the Red-Indians.

Actually, if anyone had a “right” to blow up the WTC in Manhatten, it was the native Americans, who have a markedly different attitude towards the white invaders from the Muslims (anything to do with numbers and perceived strength?). But Muslims will not ask permission of the native Americans any more than of the Europeans to invade.

So the bottom line is – stop clamming the whole world !

Is that “claiming” the whole world? You mean, like Muslims do?

Notes oao (sarcastically, for the tone-challenged): folks, when muhammad came up with the quran which talks about the supremacy of the muslims, and their right to subjugate or kill all infidels, he was responding to the european and american conquests and the lack of justice in muslims not ruling the world. such a sharp insight into the future could be worthy only of the utmost prophet and the will of allah.

this ahmed is right on one subject: the west is doing it to itself — alowing and helping the ahmeds of the world to take them over.

E.G. tried sarcastic judo: This Ahmed is a cartoon of a Moslem. And offense to the whole Umma.

@ E.G: I ve offended the whole Ummah? ha ha ah ha.. How did I do that?

To which E.G. responded, in character: Ahmed is a blasphemer. Ridicules the religion of Peace.
SHAME!
He shames the Moslems. Puts the Prophet’s beard in flames. This caricature brings Allah’s wrath upon all true believers.

Cherry-pick at work indeed! I completely agree with all sides of cherry picking. everyone is doing it. See with (cool heads), even on this blog. Out of all things a said in just 3 paragraphs: EC and oao picked few lines, twisted them and presented them in a dirty way and called me Blasphemer – just like Wilder did in his movie about Islam.

So, the matter is further proved.

And please, can we use TOEFL level English and not GRE/GMAT level. you guys are really promoting wikidictionary (if you what I mean) ;)

It seems Imran didn’t get E.G.’s sarcasm, but didn’t like it either (understandably). The comparison to Wilders “cherry-picking” is interesting: Wilders is picking the most disturbing elements of Islam, the ones that most impinge on “infidels.” To insist that outsiders bury these comments in a sea of other passages in the Qur’an, when it’s the Muslim preachers and jihadis that are actually doing the (very violent) cherry-picking, is an invitation to self-induced paralysis.

I.A.: why shouldn’t Wilders and the rest of us non-Muslims pay particular attention (i.e. cherry-pick) the most violent passages in the Qur’an, not because they’re there, but because they have been given special meaning (activated) by contemporary Muslims?

If the Arab/Muslim world was better than the “Western” world we live in, we would actually welcome the invasion to profit from the wisdom, science and liberties of your upbringing. But the problem, as you know, is that whenever the Arab/Muslim get their hand on anything that might be considered beneficial to the community, they tear it down (See the Gazan greenhouses left functional by the settlers) and I can never seem to remember the names of the great Arab institutions that gave us all these glorified Nobel laureats.
You get the drift, or do you??

The drift, of course, is that unlike communism, which in 1917 had never been tried, this particular Muslim millennial solution to the ills of the world is clearly a disaster for those forced to live under it. So not only do we have the example of other authoritarian millennial movements that have failed, to guide us in the 21st century, but the current candidate is clearly a catastrophe in waiting. So the only excuse of pushing it is simple libido dominandi.

Imram chose not to answer that one. But oao tried again, linking to yet one more example of the ruthless tyranny that assures “order” among Palestinians.

hey, ahmed,

your “civilization” at work. wonder why people have no choice but try to control you?

Hay Mr. “oao”, perhaps you live in a too serious world… its a blog not UN, CNN, BBC. stop being a violent protester throwing stones and burning tyres.

Half my message was further proved by you. I said the same thing – only a bit differently. Not to mention I used actual historic references where as you and this “Cynic” guy are just using Hard English as an argument.

I dont see any difference between You, Wilder an Any other Extremist – you directly went on and called me a Blasphemer. So just cool down. ok.

This is the first real hint of demopathy so far. Imran has virtually boasted of he and his fellow Muslims wanting to take over Europe, but Wilders and his supporters are extremists. Classic double-bind: I can be as extreme as I want; you, in your defense, may not.

Moreover – you said “when muhammad came up with the quran which talks about the supremacy of the muslims, and their right to subjugate or kill all infidels, he was responding to the european and american conquests and the lack of justice in muslims not ruling the world. such a sharp sight into the future could be worthy only of the utmost prophet and the will of allah.”

– Out of all the Islam, you could find this only ? is this how you wanna prove a point, just falling under the trap of Wilder – proving him correct that Islam preaches killings? You are the true Blasphemer. Not me! I didn’t say Kill, you specifically searched “kill” from all over Islam. Islam mentions peace, respect, love far many times more than any other religion.

And Mr Cynic, I am sorry I thought you are a European. So where are you from?

This is a strange response. Obviously this is not the only question (or passage) one could come up with to suggest that Islam preaches killing. Just the (very long) list of preachers who promote it makes the disturbing point.

I.M.: do you really want us to believe that in current Islam is not prone to violence against anyone the zealots define as either infidels or apostates (or Jahaliyya)? Wilders didn’t just cherry-pick his passages; he picked the ones of most concern to Westerners because they supply the fuel for the admittedly widespread use of terrorism that characterizes much public Muslim behavior these years. What’s wrong with that?

I.A. then gave a series of responses to previous posts:

Here, let me explain to settle your anger in the wrong direction: In my original passage,

1st paragraph was criticism on media and ppl believing what they hear on TV.

I didn’t understand it that way. I understood it to say that before TV there were lots of violence that went unrecorded. If it was to say what you just claimed above, does that mean that you, I.R., are willing to consider that you shouldn’t believe all the TV tells you about Israeli attacks on Muslim civilians?

Then I talked history and how we all have hurt each other previously

Then I criticized Wilder (which should be the actual FOCUS of this blog)

I’ve posted on Wilders, and remarked that, with a few minor changes, his film could be a recruiting film for global Jihad. What’s your response to that?

Finally I twisted fun, reality and modern history of american war together.

—– But apparently, a bunch of 90 year olds who just realized how to use a keyboard cant get it. You guys directly jumped on the ‘B’ word. Even I, greatest opposition of Wilder didnt jumped on the ‘B’ word for him which he deserves.

Why does he deserve the “B” word? Does that mean that all the preachers he cites are blasphemous?

and seriously, you guys dont have anything to say about Americans in Afghanistan and Iran? Who created the Talibans at the first place.. can anyone of you SERIOUS guys look up in the history and tell me? Who was the best friend of Americans before 1st Iraq Invasion? Who is now thinking of Lets-Invade-Iran while previously they themselves helped Iran against Iraq? Who is the All Mighty financer of Pakistan but secretly planning to one day lets invade it?

I have some problems here. First, you seem to think that the US “created the Taliban,” based presumably on the early support the US government gave the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians. This hardly means they “created” them; quite the contrary, it’s an independent Muslim (extremist) movement which the US was mistaken to encourage. But to say we “created them” is actually demeaning to Islam, since it suggests Muslims have no agency; they’re puppets of the infidels.

As for the rest of the paragraph, it seems to take bumbling US efforts to play “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” — which, when dealing with the Arab/Muslim world right now seems to be a mistake in almost every case — as some grand conspiracy.

1. Cherry Picking… That’s all what you just did. both [E.G. and oao] of you.

2. [oao:] “when i see or hear you “moderate” muslims speak out and protest harshly against your extremists imams and jihadis, you will be taken seriously. as long as you are more concerned with us revealing the truth than with the killers on your side you have no hope of being taken seriously. you’re just ridiculous”

so if Moderate Muslims speak out against other Extreme Muslims – you will take us seriously, but when we speak out against Extreme terrorist such as the one who killed kids n women in Gaza recently – you wouldn’t take us seriously? Perhaps you have not seen the pictures of torture and Massacre from this recent Gaza killings. That’s why you wont understand the sentiments of those stone throwers.

the answers to these SERIOUS questions may be simply just one Country, but the cost n effects of these events will go long long way into the future.

Now oao and EC could blame me AGAIN for these events as much as they like to….. They dont speak for the whole world.

Everyone knows who is the real “B” word award inductee!

I guesss this answers my earlier question about believing everything you see on TV. In your book, what the TV tells you about Gaza is true as long as its about Israeli terror against Palestinian civilians. But what about the documented cases of Hamas terror against its own people, including torture? What about Hamas efforts to create a humanitarian crisis? What about Hamas seeking to victimize its own people? What about the possibility that the civilian casualties were much lower and the combatant casualties much higher? Or is that all Zionist propaganda?

Part of the problem here, and the reason your response to oao is inadequate is that he’s asking for you to self-criticize as a Muslim, to take responsibility for what your co-religionists do… especially if you want us to believe that Islam does preach respect for others and peace. Demonizing the Israelis is really easy. The sign of your good faith is your willingness to self-criticize. Why is is that the Israeli/Jewish side is full of self-critical people willing publicly to say “we are (at least in part) responsible”? Why is it that your side only uses this to say, “told you so” rather than do some self-criticizing yourself?

“fitna is just a collection of what your imams are saying. if indeed it is true that islam does not incite to killing, are those imams islamophobes?”

Fitna is not just a collection of this. it compares every speech with a sentence from Quran. Not to mention, it did a lot of cherry picking. you think all the imams in the world everyday preach what was shown in Fitna? No, they dont. 90% of them preach peace, respect and love for others.

Look, if there are 1.2 billion Muslims on the planet, that means, by your count, that 120 million Muslims are hearing Jihadi hatreds and genocidal violence preached everyday. That’s staggering, and, quite frankly, unacceptable. You can’t possibly expect us to be stupid enough to believe that if 90% of Muslims preach peace and respect (your claim), that that makes Islam okay for infidels.

And when it’s clear that the 90% of peaceful, respectful Muslims (among whom, I presume, you include yourself), have nothing special to say about these other 10%, but prefer to “cherry pick” Israeli war crimes as the object of their indignation, then it’s hardly what I’d call reassuring.

Do you really expect us to take you seriously? Or are you yanking our chain? ha ha ha?

25 Responses to The Revealing Confusions of Imran Ahmed’s Comments and Responses

If I recall correctly, imran ahmed was doing a similar thing at jihad watch and was fisked thoroughly — and much better than here — by robert spencer. I dk if i am confusing him with somebody else.

it’s very hard to analyze coherently that which is incoherent. his stuff is ranting not discussing and while he tries to hold the infidels to history and logic, he masters neither very well, or at least selectively.

If Americans hates Afghan’s Taliban – who asked you to be at Afghanistan in 80’s?

here’s an example: he forgot to mention one minor thing :how and why the US got into afghanistan.

this kind of nonsense is immediate and sufficient reason to ignore everything else he says, because it is clearly dishonest.

he also equates palestinian terror with israeli terror.
but there is NO israeli terror. there is palestinian terror — missiles and suicide bombers — against civilian populations (including murder and maiming of their own people — and there is the israeli army defending israel from the terror and taking enormous care to take out only terrorists and their resources.
calling the latter israeli terror is either mendacious or ignorant and probably both.

he claims otoh that we deserve the jihad and otoh that we claim jihad when there is none. the concept of consistency has never been a muslim forte, which is they are so obvious when they lie.

But to say we “created them” is actually demeaning to Islam, since it suggests Muslims have no agency; they’re puppets of the infidels.

more proof of lack of the concept of consistency. otoh, we should leave the taliban alone, they’re just muslims in their own land. otoh, they were created by the US.

You can’t possibly expect us to be stupid enough to believe that if 90% of Muslims preach peace and respect (your claim), that that makes Islam okay for infidels.

indeed, that’s what he expects. because if and when security agencies or journalists try to discover what they preach in mosques, he immediately jumps and complains that his right to free religion is violated.
iow, just trust him when he says that 90% are preaching peace and respect, but don’t verify.

it just so happened that each time we come across an imam — even by investigation or in the muslim’s own media — we happen to come across the jihadi ones. we never seem to come across the peaceful ones very often.

indeed, that’s what he expects. because if and when security agencies or journalists try to discover what they preach in mosques, he immediately jumps and complains that his right to free religion is violated.

oao,
No doubt you have already seen this, but just to amplify things for others:

Yet instead, CAIR huffed in a statement that “infiltrating mainstream mosques the way FBI informants infiltrate white supremacist groups illustrates the FBI’s perception of American Muslims as a community that must be constantly monitored, instead of being treated as an equal partner in fighting crime and terrorism.”
CAIR is grasping at straws here in trying to give the impression that the FBI has an unwarranted “perception of American Muslims as a community that must be constantly monitored,” when in fact its spying operation yielded recordings of an Islamic jihadist talking on “multiple occasions” about “blowing up buildings, acquiring weapons and sending money to the Afghan mujahadeen.”

You don’t seem to know much about the history of the world and the order in which events occurred.
You and other Muslims got all uptight about the Crusaders invading your backyard which factually is completely back to front, as it was you Muslims who invaded and slaughtered millions of souls, Hindus, Christians and Jews, from the Indian sub-continent to Morocco, some 4 to 5 hundred years before the Crusaders tried to retake their Occupied property.

As for your complaint about us using hard English

Half my message was further proved by you. I said the same thing – only a bit differently. Not to mention I used actual historic references where as you and this “Cynic” guy are just using Hard English as an argument.

leave that for Obama who only uses words and has never created anything with them not even wrote and article for the Law Journal of which he was Editor, with all the English words he knows.

The hard English ‘unfortunately’ because most of us have been schooled to use it in daily discourse and this blog particularly thrives on a scholarly approach to intercourse (The exchange of ideas by writing, speech, or signals: communication, communion, intercommunication. Obsolete converse1. See knowledge/ignorance.) and discussion.

I suppose if we tried to participate in a blog written in Arabic or Urdu we would have the same problem you have with English, but we would not have the cheek/chutzpah to criticize the level of your mother tongue because of our inadequate command of it.

We at least have the humility to appreciate our limitations and not be shamed by having to ask for an explanation for that which we do not understand.

sure i saw it. when i see CAIR i know what’s coming. they just started putting islam ads on buses here in SF.

instead of being treated as an equal partner in fighting crime and terrorism.”

same as imran — they wanna have the cake and eat it too.
when you tell them to protest harshly against jihadis, they says, they protest ONLY against the west/israel; and when you monitor their mosques, they protest they’re equal partners against terror.

no, no. we’ll never reach his level. he’s a muslim, we are dhimmis, remember?

anyway, if imran is the same as the jihad watch one, then his method is to invade a blog which knows a thing or two about islam and, therefore, exposes things he does not want exposed and does a number like the one he did here and when he cannot withstand the heat goes away.

speaking of Western apologetics for jihadist Islam, try a piece by old-time “Leftist” Fred Halliday on the Iranian “revolution” which Martin Kramer links to. Halliday doesn’t actually deny that the present Iranian regime is a tyranny but he omits some of its most despotic expressions. And he says nothing about the treatment of Jews, and other religious-ethnic minorities there. Actually, Halliday is writing pretty much as expected. He hasn’t learned much in the last 50 years. Halliday does not make the point that RL made that, whereas in 1917 no one knew what a Communist govt would actually do once in power, in the case of fundamentalist Islam, there were many ugly historical examples.

I am surprised that Richard Landes should waste his time responding to an ignorant fool like Ahmed who doesn’t know his facts and can’t reason very well.

For exmaple, he says:

“If you Christians and Jews think that Islam is taking over Europe.. I’ve got two questions:

1) Was Europe born with your religion? or did you took over it before we did?” Ahmed

That of course would mean that Christians or some other religion can take over Muslim lands and impose their own faith there since Arabians and Persians weren’t born Muslims. In fact Islam took over these countries and imposed their religion on Arabia and Persia.

In essence, Ahmed is arguing for a version of might makes right as well as religious truth.

As was the case with the previous tractor terror attacks, the terrorist’s family is playing us for fools.
However, the family of 26-year-old Rdaidah, who was married and had a young daughter, said they believed the incident was an accident and not a deliberate act of terror.
“We are waiting for him to return home… He is only interested in religion, he doesn’t know what terror attacks are, they don’t interest him,” his mother told Channel 10.

funny how all voilant muslims get inspiration for their “flying” from a sources which has nothing to do with violence. they all seem to misinterpret piety in the same way.

“Born Dublin, Republic of Ireland in 1946, he was educated at the Marist School, Dundalk (1950-1953), Ampleforth College, Yorkshire ( 1953-1963), the University of Oxford (1964-1967), and the School of Oriental and African Studies (1969-1969). His doctorate at the London School of Economics, on the foreign relations of the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, was awarded in 1985. From 1973 to 1985, he was a fellow of the Transnational Institute, Amsterdam and Washington. From 1969 – 1983, he served as a member of editorial board of New Left Review. In 1983, he took up a teaching position at LSE and from 1985 to 2008 was Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics. In 2005, he was made Montague Burton Professor of International Relations at the LSE. Since April 2008, ICREA research professor at IBEI, the Barcelona Institute for International Studies, in Spain. In 2002, he was elected fellow of the British Academy. Columnist for openDemocracy and La Vanguardia.

A committed linguist, and advocate of the centrality of language to understanding contemporary globalisation, Halliday can work in twelve languages, including Latin, Greek, Persian, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Russian, Portuguese, Arabic, and English. Beginning in 1965, he has travelled widely in the Middle East, visiting every country from Afghanistan to Morocco, and giving lectures in most.

Fred Halliday supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as well as the (first) Gulf War, the interventions in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999, as well as the American war against Afghanistan in 2001. Influenced by Bill Warren, he considers imperialism to play “a progressive role in transforming the world”.[1]”

One need not agree with him on every issue, or most issues, to note that he is not a typical leftist.

RL: “the early support the US government gave the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians.”

This is factually incorrect. The Taliban did not exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The U.S. provided aid to the Afghan resistance (the mujahideen). The mujahideen included a variety of factions, some of which later opposed the Taliban, e.g. Ahmed Shah Massoud. The Taliban arose years after the Soviet withdrawal, sponsored by Islamist elements in the Pakistani government.

The U.S. is in no way responsible for the Taliban. Nor for Al-Qaeda. There were Arab volunteers in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden was their leader, but the “Arab-Afghans” had their own funding from Saudi Arabian donors.

U.S. aid to a cruelly oppressed Moslem people was welcomed by them and applauded by Moslems around the world, if they bothered to notice.

Robbins, it’s not important how many languages fred Halliday knows. He knows more than I do but half of the number that Jabotinsky knew.

What bothers me is the slant of Halliday’s writings. I believe that the article by Halliday that I read was rather soft on the regime of the ayatollahs and obfuscated the fact that the West helped Khomeini take over Iran. There were significant omissions in what Halliday found wrong with the Iran of the ayatollahs. Nothing about Jews, Bahais, Zoroastrians, the status of women, homosexuals, etc. Nor was he bothered –as I recall– by the threats to destroy to Israel. As I recall, he did not mention them. Nor A-jad’s game of coy Holocaust denial. Halliday doesn’t mention how Western states fawn over A-jad as did the UN and al-Barade’i of the atomic energy commission. Nor does he ask why the USA allowed him to come in to New York. Halliday’s criticisms are very selective.

Holocaust Guilt vs. Holocaust Shame: On the Crisis of Western Civilization This is a longer version of what appeared in the Tablet. Richard Landes, Jerusalem @richard_landes [email protected]Read More »